The Journal of arthroplasty · 2024
Preoperative Psychopharmacological Treatment Is Not a Risk Factor for Poorer Patient-Reported Improvements 12 months After Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Registry-Based Cohort Study of 7,247 Procedures.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kornvig Simon, Kehlet Henrik, Jørgensen Christoffer C, Fink-Jensen Anders, Videbech Poul, Jakobsen Thomas, Gromov Kirill, Varnum Claus
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Preoperative psychopharmacological treatment (PPT) has been associated with increased hospital length of stay and readmission rate after hip and knee arthroplasty. However, little is known regarding the association between PPT and improvements in patient-reported outcomes postoperatively in a multicenter fast-track setting. Thus, the primary objective was to investigate whether PPT is a risk factor for poorer patient-reported improvements 12 months after surgery. Secondary objectives included assessment of additional time points and subgroups of PPT.
METHODS: This multicenter registry-based cohort study included 4,021 primary hip and 3,226 primary knee arthroplasties performed from 2016 to 2020 at three fast-track departments in Denmark due to primary osteoarthritis. The Oxford Hip Score/Oxford Knee Score (OHS/OKS), EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Levels/EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels, and EuroQol visual analog scale were collected at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Exposure status was assigned using the Danish National Prescription Registry. Marginal mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multilevel Tobit regression and adjusted for age, sex, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index obtained from the Danish National Patient Register.
RESULTS: No associations were found between PPT and improvements in OHS (MD -0.5, CI -1.4 to 0.4) or OKS (MD -0.3, CI -1.2 to 0.5) after 12 months. However, PPT was associated with lower baseline OHS (MD -1.4, CI -2.2 to -0.6) and OKS (MD -2.1, CI -2.9 to -1.3), and 12 months follow-up OHS (MD -1.9, CI -2.8 to -1.1) and OKS (MD -2.4, CI -3.2 to -1.6). Similar findings were observed at other time points, using EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Levels/EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels or EuroQol visual analog scale, and when evaluating PPT subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: In hip and knee arthroplasty, PPT was not a risk factor for poorer patient-reported improvements 12 months after surgery. However, PPT was associated with marginally poorer baseline and follow-up scores. Thus, arthroplasties remain effective treatments despite PPT from a patient-centered perspective.
METHODS: This multicenter registry-based cohort study included 4,021 primary hip and 3,226 primary knee arthroplasties performed from 2016 to 2020 at three fast-track departments in Denmark due to primary osteoarthritis. The Oxford Hip Score/Oxford Knee Score (OHS/OKS), EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Levels/EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels, and EuroQol visual analog scale were collected at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Exposure status was assigned using the Danish National Prescription Registry. Marginal mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multilevel Tobit regression and adjusted for age, sex, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index obtained from the Danish National Patient Register.
RESULTS: No associations were found between PPT and improvements in OHS (MD -0.5, CI -1.4 to 0.4) or OKS (MD -0.3, CI -1.2 to 0.5) after 12 months. However, PPT was associated with lower baseline OHS (MD -1.4, CI -2.2 to -0.6) and OKS (MD -2.1, CI -2.9 to -1.3), and 12 months follow-up OHS (MD -1.9, CI -2.8 to -1.1) and OKS (MD -2.4, CI -3.2 to -1.6). Similar findings were observed at other time points, using EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Levels/EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels or EuroQol visual analog scale, and when evaluating PPT subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: In hip and knee arthroplasty, PPT was not a risk factor for poorer patient-reported improvements 12 months after surgery. However, PPT was associated with marginally poorer baseline and follow-up scores. Thus, arthroplasties remain effective treatments despite PPT from a patient-centered perspective.